How many judgments cite CIT v. Biju Patnaik?

46 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Biju Patnaik come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 131, Section 69, Section 133A.

CIT v. Biju Patnaik

160 ITR 674Supreme Court of India1986#2499 most cited

What is CIT v. Biju Patnaik authority for?

For any cash credit under Section 68, the assessee must discharge their primary onus by proving the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness to advance the money, and the genuineness of the transaction. Only after this primary onus is discharged does the burden of proof shift to the Revenue.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Biju Patnaik · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained credit · onus of proof · identity creditworthiness genuineness · burden of proof shifts · share application money · genuineness of transaction · accommodation entries

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 131 Section 69 Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

paper company share capital and share premium bogus ltcg source of source addition under section 68 creditworthiness of the creditor share application money penny stock addition u/s 68 entry operator genuineness of the transaction fair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Biju Patnaik

M/S. Sekhani Industries Pvt Ltd. ( Formerly Known As Mangal Cotton Mills Pvt.Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Sekani Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(2), (Formerly Known As Mangal Cotton Mills Vs Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.), 62, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad- 380001. Pan : Aabcm0470G (Appellant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Shah, Ca : Shriv. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Revenue By सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Shah, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…when assessing officer asked the assessee to explain these inter-connected transactions, it was the duty of the assessee to explain the same. In this regard, a useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon`ble Apex Court in the case of Biju Patnaik, 160 ITR 674 (SC) wherein it was held that in appropriate cases even the source of source has to be proved by the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 14.Although, the issue before us pertains to assessment year 2012-13 where amended provisions of section 68 do not apply, however, considering the facts of the case, the assessee has to explain the source of…

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Range-1, Hyderabad vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Jcit (Osd) Range - 1 Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Hyderabad. Transport Corporation, [Apsrtc] Hyderabad. [Pan – Aagfaa3527J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Yvst Sai, Cit, Dr Assessee By: None Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 /06/2021 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Ay 2012-13 Arises Against The Cit(A) - 1, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 15.12.2017 Passed In Case No 0170/2017- 18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 JCIT (OSD) Range - 1 Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Hyderabad. Transport Corporation, [APSRTC] Hyderabad. [PAN – AAGFAA3527J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri YVST Sai, CIT, DR Assessee by: None Date of hearing: 08/04/2021 Date of pronouncement: 11 /06/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, JM: This Revenue’s appeal for AY 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A) - 1, Hyderabad’s order dated 15.12.2017 passed in case no 0170/2017- 18 involving proc…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…(82 ITR 540) • Mc.Dowell & Co. Limited (154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jai Vs. Pr. CIT. Finally he held that long term capital gain claimed by the assessee is non-genuine and held that the same was unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Thereafter the Assessing Office…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Durgapur vs. M/S Kalyan Educational Society, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose while the cross-objection of the assessee is treated as allowed as indicated above

ITA 1242/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)

…ee is on the assessee and he was to discharge the primary onus of proving the identity and genuineness of the transactions as held by the Hon’ble Court in the cases of Kale Khan Md. Hanif (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatu (1977) 107 ITR (SC), Biju Patanaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) and Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC).” Grounds of Assessee’s cross-objections: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,45,01,400/- on account of unsecured loans. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 4,39,84,532/- on account…

Bhagwatiben Vinodkumar Surani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(1)., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1309/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

…decisions by the apex court in the matter: A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanit v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); Durga Prasad More (supra); CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674/26 Taxman 324 (SC); Sumati Dayal (supra); and CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 (SC) We may further clarify that in proceeding with the matter, we have circumscribed the entire material on record. 4.2 The assessee, to begin with, has nowhere explained as why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which is ascribed…

Gaurav Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 60 (5 ), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1234/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. D. R

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…sions by the apex court in the matter: A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (1958) 34 itr 807 (sc); Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanit Vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) Durga Prasad More (supra); CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674/26 Taxman 324 (SC). Surrmti Dayal (supra); and CIT v. P. Mohanakala 120071291 ITR 278/161 Taxman 169 (SC) We may further clarify that in proceeding with the matter, we have circumscribed the entire material on record. 4.2 The assessee, to begin with, has nowhere explained as why the shares were purchased in cash, the source of which is ascribe…

Shailesh Jaiswal, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer, - Katni

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 166/JAB/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2005-06 Shailesh Jaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaiswal Dhaba, Ward-Katni, (M.P.) Kuthla Thana, Pureni, Katni (M.P.) [Pan: Adtpj 3555H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ite some case law: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT v. P. Mohanakala & Ors. [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) The addition, however, is to be restricted to Rs. 2,79,000, i.e., the aggregate amount of the cash credits. The balance cash deposited (i.e., Rs. 21,000), is sourced from the assesses’ cash book qua which the Revenue has not made any observation e…

ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abacus Real Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito 14(1)(1), Room No. 431, Abacus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 101, Kalpatru Synergy, Opp. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Grand Hyaatsantacruz East, Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Aagca4865L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anadi Varma, CIT- DR &

Section 143(3)Section 68

…he case of Pragati Financial Management (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that source of source can be relevant inquiry. In Gaurav Pigments Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) held that source of source is also required to be established by the assessee because primarily the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the lender lies on the assessee. Abacus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 9 7.1 Now we discuss the case-law relied on by the Ld. counsel. In the decision Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd. (supra), the assessee-company was…

The ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S. Thomson Metals, Trichur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA

Section 132Section 153CSection 68

…y distinction between loans or capital. 5. When an assessee records credits in the name of third parties in its books, he must prove Identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor to advance money and genuineness of transaction. [CIT Vs Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674]. Onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of receipt cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies with the Revenue to how that the income is from any particular…

Ajay Malshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. JCIT 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.641/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin M. Furia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, DR

Section 143Section 68

…to Rs. 90 lacs. The AO relied upon following case laws to come to the aforesaid conclusion:- a) Sumati Dayal v. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 b) Vasntibai N Shah v. CIT (Bom) 213 ITR 805 c) Sreelekha Banerjee & Oths. v. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112 d) Cit v. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674 e) Roshan De Hatti v. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 Hence additions were made by the AO in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 90,00,000/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the 1961 Act. Similarly interest paid to these three lending parties to the tune of Rs. 7,55,411/- was also disallowed by the AO as un- secured loans transactions with t…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…reference to the facts of the case. 3. The principle of law is that apparent is the real. The onus to prove contrary is on the Department. The authorities on this preposition are CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawafmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT vs. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC), CIT vs. Bedi and Company Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC) and several others of the Hon’ble High Courts. Nothing has been brought on record by the Assessing Authority to show that the apparent is not real. Being so, the apparent shall prevail. 4. The support from the decisions of the apex court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540…

The Assisatant Commissioenr of Income-Tax, Hoshiarpur vs. Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…a Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) [affirming 34 ITR 669 (MP)] CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) CIT v. Lachhmandass Oswal [1980] 126 ITR 446 (P&H) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) CIT v. Y.M. Singla [2014] 366 ITR 242 (P&H) Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) The reason for the same is simple; the assessee…

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…AO has referred, viz. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) 8 ITA No. 514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H) Dayal Singh & Sons v. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 90 (P&H) Namdev Arora v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 434 (P&H) A credit in the assessee’s…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…CIT vs. Prateek Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. 215 ITR 272 (Del) xxvii. Shankar Industries vs. CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal) xxviii. Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT 140 ITR 151(All) xxix. Hari Chand Virender Paul vs. CIT 140 ITR 148 (P&H) xxx. CIT vs. Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) xxxi. Income Tax Officer vs. Skyjet Aviation (P) Ltd. 71 ITD 95 (Ahd) xxxii. CIT vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 465 (Cal) xxxiii. Orient Wire Industries (P) Ltd. 131 ITR 688 (Cal) xxxiv. CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Cal) xxxv. K.C.N. Chandrassekhar vs. ACIT 66 TTJ 355 (Bang) xxxvi. Gayathri Associates vs. Income Tax Offi…

V.C. Nannapaneni vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITTA/159/2005HC Telangana05 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr. K. Vasant KumarFor Respondent: Ms. K. Mamata

Section 10(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ts” in the “Territory” specified in the agreement and that as a pat of consideration for such transfer, it has been agreed that NATCO GROUP shall not carry on directly or 6 (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC) 7 (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTAs 159 & 160/2005 12 indirectly the business hitherto in the “Territory” specified in the agreement. The agreement defined the word “Products”, as described in Annexure-I and the word “Territory” as Territory of Russia & CIS countries, including Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhastan.…

M/S. Ganesh Kumar & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1708/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…se: i. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 [SC] ii CIT Vs. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 [SC] iii. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd Vs. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 202 [Del] iv. Bhartesh Jain Vs. DCIT [Del] 483 CTR Vol 201 dated 7.4.2006 v. CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 15. So far as the arguments of the ld. AR that the A.O has not disposed of the objections raised on reopening of the assessment is concerned, the ld. AR referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. B.L. Meena, ITO & Ors reported at 287 ITR 337 [Del] submitted that he has no objection if the matter is…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1. Kale Khan Mohammand Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). 2. CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). 3. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd., vs CIT (2008) 305 ITR 202 (Delhi). 4. Bhartesh Jain vs DCIT (Del) 483 CTR 201 dated 07.04.2006. 5. CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 23. In view of these facts, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.68.50 lakhs under section 68 of the Act as in our opinion this is not a fit case which warranted our interference. 24. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is…

A.C.I.T Cir - 3, Asansol vs. Sri Bireswar Kar, Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed while the C

ITA 1454/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…other in law of the assessee is a Head Master of a school in the district of Burdwan. The money he put in the bank represented accumulation of his earnings as a teacher.The AO however, observed that it is well settled in the cases of CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (SC) 160 ITR 674, Roshan De Hatti Vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 and Shankar Industries Vs. CIT (Cal) 114 ITR 689 and in many other cases by different courts of law of India that in order the discharge the onus, the assessee must prove the followings:- i) The identity of the creditor, ii) The capacity of the creditor to advance money, and iii) The genuineness of the…

Tilak Raj Anand, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4593/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyshri Tilak Raj Anand, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Hotel Continenta, Circle-8(1), Regal Building, Behind Regal New Delhi Cinema, New Delhi Pan: Adrpa4243P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 143Section 68

…Jain v DCIT(Dek) 483 CTR : Vol. 201 : DTD 07/04/06 - Cash credits - could not be satisfactorily explained by the assessee which means that onus u/s 68 has not been discharged. Hence addition u/s 68 is valid. Shri Tilak Raj Anand Vs DCIT 2. CIT v Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 (SC) - It has been held that evidences to prove creditworthiness to donor/creditor is very vital and that the assessee is required to prove even the source of the source. 3. CS-Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC) - Asstt of unexplained cash credits in the a/c of business assessable as income from undisclosed sources. Cash credits…